The comparison with Eurostar is a bit misleading, since you do have to go through two lots of passport control (one of them British) before you get onto Eurostar. It is factually correct that anyone who is allowed access to Ireland can get into the UK very easily via the numerous border crossings. So far, we've taken the view that if someone is good enough for Ireland he's good enough for us, and if we changed our minds on that it would be a serious blow to the peace process.

In practice this is only likely to be an issue if Britain introduced a visa requirement for EU citizens wishing to visit us on holiday. That's very unlikely, since Brits would absolutely hate the inevitable retaliation (and the tourist industry would have a collective coronary). So JRM isn't factually entirely wrong, but he appears to lack common sense.

I went to Northern Ireland for the first time earlier this year and flew from Manchester. Travellers were firmly advised to get their 'passports' (not ID) ready for inspection in the departure lounge and everyone (who I could see) willingly obliged. I was surprised (given I was travelling in the UK) and it made an interesting difference from entering many regional airports in France (which I visit regularly) where a driving licence seems to be perfectly acceptable - even from UK nationals!

Incidentally I found NI to be beautiful and the people I met to be genuinely hospitable in a way you don't find elsewhere in the UK.

The Irish Republic is a grown up state and entitled to be treated as an equal. The actions of our ancestors on that island were in many cases deplorable and we owe the Irish a duty to treat them honourably now.

The concerns about the border are about illegal immigration, smuggling and standards.

Illegal immigration we fix by adopting the Swiss system to reduce demand (thanks again to rcs1000 for his video).

Smuggling we fix by intelligence led raids back from the border.

Standards we fix by mutual recognition and prosecutions for breaches, with cooperation.

The goal must be that people living anywhere on that Island can feel unionist or republican in their own homes or workplaces without threat from others, with no pressure from the state or others to stare into their souls and demand loyalty.

I experienced this during the summer when our flight from Dublin to Gatwick was threated as an internal British flight and we did not go through the usual border controls. I thought this curious unless the documents processed at Dublin indicated all passengers were EU nationals or had UK passports so all were valid under CTA.

As Topping says, the CTA existed long before Ireland and the UK joined the then EEC in 1973 - it's an arrangement analogous, I believe, to the system which allows Australians and New Zealanders Freedom of Movement. Many kiwis used to go to work in Australia where there were more opportunities. I'm also tempted to argue the Irish built the London Underground.

It's a conundrum and I'm not an expert but it relates purely to the divergence between the UK and Ireland once we leave the EU (whether at the end of Transition or on 29/3/19). Until now, the UK and Ireland have been in the same place - we joined the EU together, we signed up to the SM together.

Can anything be determined from where a passport is issued? Mrs Stodge is a Kiwi and has dual nationality but her NZ passport, even though it is produced in London, still has a country of issue as New Zealand because the High Commission is NZ territory albeit in a very nice part of London with a fantastic view from the roof.

I went to Northern Ireland for the first time earlier this year and flew from Manchester. Travellers were firmly advised to get their 'passports' (not ID) ready for inspection in the departure lounge and everyone (who I could see) willingly obliged. I was surprised (given I was travelling in the UK) and it made an interesting difference from entering many regional airports in France (which I visit regularly) where a driving licence seems to be perfectly acceptable - even from UK nationals!

Incidentally I found NI to be beautiful and the people I met to be genuinely hospitable in a way you don't find elsewhere in the UK.

I believe you have to produce a passport to fly anywhere, on a commercial plane, within the UK. I always have to show one, when I occasionally fly London-Cornwall.

So basically we have had freedom of movement without even a formal agreement (pre 2011) for 100 years or so with Eire. We cooperate on immigration from third parties including other EU citizens. We are content for this arrangement to continue post Brexit. We are content for there to be no border posts or checks. We would be content with away from the border checks on goods, etc as we have today. We currently have identical standards. We are going to be bound to those standards for at least the transition period and possibly longer.

Why do we have to have the backstop again? What exactly is the problem that it is supposed to be a solution to? No doubt the fault is mine.

A border in Ireland undermines the GFA.The GFA is what keeps the peace in Ireland.So a border threatens peace in Ireland.To avoid a border NI must not diverge from ROI.ROI is in the EU.Thus NI must remain in the EU.NI is part of the UK and must not diverge from England, Wales, Scotland.Therefore the UK must remain in the EU.

In other words, anything but the softest of 'BINO' brexits is not possible without running a serious risk of a return to the Troubles.

If this is true (and is it true?) it should have played a far bigger part in the 2016 referendum debate than I remember it did.

I went to Northern Ireland for the first time earlier this year and flew from Manchester. Travellers were firmly advised to get their 'passports' (not ID) ready for inspection in the departure lounge and everyone (who I could see) willingly obliged. I was surprised (given I was travelling in the UK) and it made an interesting difference from entering many regional airports in France (which I visit regularly) where a driving licence seems to be perfectly acceptable - even from UK nationals!

Incidentally I found NI to be beautiful and the people I met to be genuinely hospitable in a way you don't find elsewhere in the UK.

I believe you have to produce a passport to fly anywhere, on a commercial plane, within the UK. I always have to show one, when I occasionally fly London-Cornwall.

Interesting; I'm flying to Dublin for the first time in a fortnight so I'll be interested to find out if I can feel a cultural difference between the two cities.

So basically we have had freedom of movement without even a formal agreement (pre 2011) for 100 years or so with Eire. We cooperate on immigration from third parties including other EU citizens. We are content for this arrangement to continue post Brexit. We are content for there to be no border posts or checks. We would be content with away from the border checks on goods, etc as we have today. We currently have identical standards. We are going to be bound to those standards for at least the transition period and possibly longer.

Why do we have to have the backstop again? What exactly is the problem that it is supposed to be a solution to? No doubt the fault is mine.

None of this stops JRM from being a prat of course.

Read the amended article (he commanded arrogantly). It will tell you what the problem is.

A border in Ireland undermines the GFA.The GFA is what keeps the peace in Ireland.So a border threatens peace in Ireland.To avoid a border NI must not diverge from ROI.ROI is in the EU.Thus NI must remain in the EU.NI is part of the UK and must not diverge from England, Wales, Scotland.Therefore the UK must remain in the EU.

In other words, anything but the softest of 'BINO' brexits is not possible without running a serious risk of a return to the Troubles.

If this is true (and is it true?) it should have played a far bigger part in the 2016 referendum debate than I remember it did.

It was mentioned but then as now was an inconvenient truth because it showed precisely to what extent we have integrated with our neighbours.

So basically we have had freedom of movement without even a formal agreement (pre 2011) for 100 years or so with Eire. We cooperate on immigration from third parties including other EU citizens. We are content for this arrangement to continue post Brexit. We are content for there to be no border posts or checks. We would be content with away from the border checks on goods, etc as we have today. We currently have identical standards. We are going to be bound to those standards for at least the transition period and possibly longer.

Why do we have to have the backstop again? What exactly is the problem that it is supposed to be a solution to? No doubt the fault is mine.

None of this stops JRM from being a prat of course.

Sorry this was written in response to the first piece. I think the question is still valid but I will need to read the second version more carefully.

I went to Northern Ireland for the first time earlier this year and flew from Manchester. Travellers were firmly advised to get their 'passports' (not ID) ready for inspection in the departure lounge and everyone (who I could see) willingly obliged. I was surprised (given I was travelling in the UK) and it made an interesting difference from entering many regional airports in France (which I visit regularly) where a driving licence seems to be perfectly acceptable - even from UK nationals!

Incidentally I found NI to be beautiful and the people I met to be genuinely hospitable in a way you don't find elsewhere in the UK.

I believe you have to produce a passport to fly anywhere, on a commercial plane, within the UK. I always have to show one, when I occasionally fly London-Cornwall.

Interesting; I'm flying to Dublin for the first time in a fortnight so I'll be interested to find out if I can feel a cultural difference between the two cities.

Dublin is odd. It can feel very British - more British than London. It's like a more prosperous extrovert Liverpool, or Glasgow.(The suburbs, however, are seriously drab).

The further you get from Dublin the less British Ireland becomes, and by the time you're down in the Ring of Kerry or on the Arran Isles it is very definitely a different country. I love the west coast, especially Connemara.

I went to Northern Ireland for the first time earlier this year and flew from Manchester. Travellers were firmly advised to get their 'passports' (not ID) ready for inspection in the departure lounge and everyone (who I could see) willingly obliged. I was surprised (given I was travelling in the UK) and it made an interesting difference from entering many regional airports in France (which I visit regularly) where a driving licence seems to be perfectly acceptable - even from UK nationals!

Incidentally I found NI to be beautiful and the people I met to be genuinely hospitable in a way you don't find elsewhere in the UK.

I believe you have to produce a passport to fly anywhere, on a commercial plane, within the UK. I always have to show one, when I occasionally fly London-Cornwall.

I went to Northern Ireland for the first time earlier this year and flew from Manchester. Travellers were firmly advised to get their 'passports' (not ID) ready for inspection in the departure lounge and everyone (who I could see) willingly obliged. I was surprised (given I was travelling in the UK) and it made an interesting difference from entering many regional airports in France (which I visit regularly) where a driving licence seems to be perfectly acceptable - even from UK nationals!

Incidentally I found NI to be beautiful and the people I met to be genuinely hospitable in a way you don't find elsewhere in the UK.

I believe you have to produce a passport to fly anywhere, on a commercial plane, within the UK. I always have to show one, when I occasionally fly London-Cornwall.

I went to Northern Ireland for the first time earlier this year and flew from Manchester. Travellers were firmly advised to get their 'passports' (not ID) ready for inspection in the departure lounge and everyone (who I could see) willingly obliged. I was surprised (given I was travelling in the UK) and it made an interesting difference from entering many regional airports in France (which I visit regularly) where a driving licence seems to be perfectly acceptable - even from UK nationals!

Incidentally I found NI to be beautiful and the people I met to be genuinely hospitable in a way you don't find elsewhere in the UK.

I believe you have to produce a passport to fly anywhere, on a commercial plane, within the UK. I always have to show one, when I occasionally fly London-Cornwall.

I have flown to Northern Ireland on a driving licence.

Wow. Where do I get one like it? Mine does many things but it won't fly. It won't even let me drive unless I have a car...

I went to Northern Ireland for the first time earlier this year and flew from Manchester. Travellers were firmly advised to get their 'passports' (not ID) ready for inspection in the departure lounge and everyone (who I could see) willingly obliged. I was surprised (given I was travelling in the UK) and it made an interesting difference from entering many regional airports in France (which I visit regularly) where a driving licence seems to be perfectly acceptable - even from UK nationals!

Incidentally I found NI to be beautiful and the people I met to be genuinely hospitable in a way you don't find elsewhere in the UK.

I believe you have to produce a passport to fly anywhere, on a commercial plane, within the UK. I always have to show one, when I occasionally fly London-Cornwall.

Interesting; I'm flying to Dublin for the first time in a fortnight so I'll be interested to find out if I can feel a cultural difference between the two cities.

Dublin is odd. It can feel very British - more British than London. It's like a more prosperous extrovert Liverpool, or Glasgow.(The suburbs, however, are seriously drab).

The further you get from Dublin the less British Ireland becomes, and by the time you're down in the Ring of Kerry or on the Arran Isles it is very definitely a different country. I love the west coast, especially Connemara.

Thanks - I'm taking my mum (in her 70s) for a pre-Christmas 'rest' before the remainder of our somewhat dysfunctional family descend upon us. Knowing your reputation for food appreciation is there a restaurant in Dublin you would recommend? The key word for mum is 'traditional'.

A border in Ireland undermines the GFA.The GFA is what keeps the peace in Ireland.So a border threatens peace in Ireland.To avoid a border NI must not diverge from ROI.ROI is in the EU.Thus NI must remain in the EU.NI is part of the UK and must not diverge from England, Wales, Scotland.Therefore the UK must remain in the EU.

In other words, anything but the softest of 'BINO' brexits is not possible without running a serious risk of a return to the Troubles.

If this is true (and is it true?) it should have played a far bigger part in the 2016 referendum debate than I remember it did.

It was mentioned but then as now was an inconvenient truth because it showed precisely to what extent we have integrated with our neighbours.

Except at the time of the election the Irish were more than happy to look at a technical solution for this. It was only after Varadkar took over that it suddenly became an issue.

And worth pointing out again there is not a single word in the GFA about not having a hard border. This is simply the current interpretation the parties have chosen to put on the issue.

I went to Northern Ireland for the first time earlier this year and flew from Manchester. Travellers were firmly advised to get their 'passports' (not ID) ready for inspection in the departure lounge and everyone (who I could see) willingly obliged. I was surprised (given I was travelling in the UK) and it made an interesting difference from entering many regional airports in France (which I visit regularly) where a driving licence seems to be perfectly acceptable - even from UK nationals!

Incidentally I found NI to be beautiful and the people I met to be genuinely hospitable in a way you don't find elsewhere in the UK.

I believe you have to produce a passport to fly anywhere, on a commercial plane, within the UK. I always have to show one, when I occasionally fly London-Cornwall.

Interesting; I'm flying to Dublin for the first time in a fortnight so I'll be interested to find out if I can feel a cultural difference between the two cities.

Dublin is odd. It can feel very British - more British than London. It's like a more prosperous extrovert Liverpool, or Glasgow.(The suburbs, however, are seriously drab).

The further you get from Dublin the less British Ireland becomes, and by the time you're down in the Ring of Kerry or on the Arran Isles it is very definitely a different country. I love the west coast, especially Connemara.

Central Dublin seemed like a bit of a dump to me when I was there. Trinity has some nice bits, although there are many nice campuses in the UK. Temple Bar is a very fun and attractive area. But the rest was just dowdy. It seemed to have all the crampedness, traffic and construction of a big city even though it isn't one. And the central landmark is a God awful tacky spire. Apparently they once had a lovely Nelson's column but the IRA got upset about it and blew it up.

"Many people, Anna Soubry for example, have said that trading on WTO terms would, ipso facto, require a hard border in Northern Ireland. But this is not the case. The WTO does not require its Member States to secure their borders"

If Britain leaves the single market, though, the EU will not allow the Republic of Ireland to trade freely across the border.

I went to Northern Ireland for the first time earlier this year and flew from Manchester. Travellers were firmly advised to get their 'passports' (not ID) ready for inspection in the departure lounge and everyone (who I could see) willingly obliged. I was surprised (given I was travelling in the UK) and it made an interesting difference from entering many regional airports in France (which I visit regularly) where a driving licence seems to be perfectly acceptable - even from UK nationals!

Incidentally I found NI to be beautiful and the people I met to be genuinely hospitable in a way you don't find elsewhere in the UK.

I believe you have to produce a passport to fly anywhere, on a commercial plane, within the UK. I always have to show one, when I occasionally fly London-Cornwall.

Interesting; I'm flying to Dublin for the first time in a fortnight so I'll be interested to find out if I can feel a cultural difference between the two cities.

Dublin is odd. It can feel very British - more British than London. It's like a more prosperous extrovert Liverpool, or Glasgow.(The suburbs, however, are seriously drab).

The further you get from Dublin the less British Ireland becomes, and by the time you're down in the Ring of Kerry or on the Arran Isles it is very definitely a different country. I love the west coast, especially Connemara.

Central Dublin seemed like a bit of a dump to me when I was there. Trinity has some nice bits, although there are many nice campuses in the UK. Temple Bar is a very fun and attractive area. But the rest was just dowdy. It seemed to have all the crampedness, traffic and construction of a big city even though it isn't one. And the central landmark is a God awful tacky spire. Apparently they once had a lovely Nelson's column but the IRA got upset about it and blew it up.

I went to Northern Ireland for the first time earlier this year and flew from Manchester. Travellers were firmly advised to get their 'passports' (not ID) ready for inspection in the departure lounge and everyone (who I could see) willingly obliged. I was surprised (given I was travelling in the UK) and it made an interesting difference from entering many regional airports in France (which I visit regularly) where a driving licence seems to be perfectly acceptable - even from UK nationals!

Incidentally I found NI to be beautiful and the people I met to be genuinely hospitable in a way you don't find elsewhere in the UK.

I believe you have to produce a passport to fly anywhere, on a commercial plane, within the UK. I always have to show one, when I occasionally fly London-Cornwall.

"You will need a current passport if you are travelling abroad and for many domestic flights within the UK"

I went there to get a US Visa from the Belfast embassy due to wait times in London. There were plenty others doing the same thing. Taxi drivers said it was a big part of their trade. Giiven your passport has to be mailed back to you a week later, all of them must have been flying on other ID.

I went to Northern Ireland for the first time earlier this year and flew from Manchester. Travellers were firmly advised to get their 'passports' (not ID) ready for inspection in the departure lounge and everyone (who I could see) willingly obliged. I was surprised (given I was travelling in the UK) and it made an interesting difference from entering many regional airports in France (which I visit regularly) where a driving licence seems to be perfectly acceptable - even from UK nationals!

Incidentally I found NI to be beautiful and the people I met to be genuinely hospitable in a way you don't find elsewhere in the UK.

I believe you have to produce a passport to fly anywhere, on a commercial plane, within the UK. I always have to show one, when I occasionally fly London-Cornwall.

I have flown to Northern Ireland on a driving licence.

Wow. Where do I get one like it? Mine does many things but it won't fly. It won't even let me drive unless I have a car...

Only the old paper ones do that. You have to unfold them and speak the magic words - Omigosh Kadabara At'All, At'All - and then you're delivered, as if by magic, to Belfast. I'm not sure if you have to pay for coffee in flight.

A border in Ireland undermines the GFA.The GFA is what keeps the peace in Ireland.So a border threatens peace in Ireland.To avoid a border NI must not diverge from ROI.ROI is in the EU.Thus NI must remain in the EU.NI is part of the UK and must not diverge from England, Wales, Scotland.Therefore the UK must remain in the EU.

In other words, anything but the softest of 'BINO' brexits is not possible without running a serious risk of a return to the Troubles.

If this is true (and is it true?) it should have played a far bigger part in the 2016 referendum debate than I remember it did.

It was mentioned but then as now was an inconvenient truth because it showed precisely to what extent we have integrated with our neighbours.

Except at the time of the election the Irish were more than happy to look at a technical solution for this. It was only after Varadkar took over that it suddenly became an issue.

And worth pointing out again there is not a single word in the GFA about not having a hard border. This is simply the current interpretation the parties have chosen to put on the issue.

It is the current interpretation because it is an essential prerequisite of any agreement. This is basic understanding of the history of the island of Ireland.

I went to Northern Ireland for the first time earlier this year and flew from Manchester. Travellers were firmly advised to get their 'passports' (not ID) ready for inspection in the departure lounge and everyone (who I could see) willingly obliged. I was surprised (given I was travelling in the UK) and it made an interesting difference from entering many regional airports in France (which I visit regularly) where a driving licence seems to be perfectly acceptable - even from UK nationals!

Incidentally I found NI to be beautiful and the people I met to be genuinely hospitable in a way you don't find elsewhere in the UK.

I believe you have to produce a passport to fly anywhere, on a commercial plane, within the UK. I always have to show one, when I occasionally fly London-Cornwall.

I have flown to Northern Ireland on a driving licence.

Wow. Where do I get one like it? Mine does many things but it won't fly. It won't even let me drive unless I have a car...

Only the old paper ones do that. You have to unfold them and speak the magic words - Omigosh Kadabara At'All, At'All - and then you're delivered, as if by magic, to Belfast. I'm not sure if you have to pay for coffee in flight.

A border in Ireland undermines the GFA.The GFA is what keeps the peace in Ireland.So a border threatens peace in Ireland.To avoid a border NI must not diverge from ROI.ROI is in the EU.Thus NI must remain in the EU.NI is part of the UK and must not diverge from England, Wales, Scotland.Therefore the UK must remain in the EU.

In other words, anything but the softest of 'BINO' brexits is not possible without running a serious risk of a return to the Troubles.

If this is true (and is it true?) it should have played a far bigger part in the 2016 referendum debate than I remember it did.

It was mentioned but then as now was an inconvenient truth because it showed precisely to what extent we have integrated with our neighbours.

Except at the time of the election the Irish were more than happy to look at a technical solution for this. It was only after Varadkar took over that it suddenly became an issue.

And worth pointing out again there is not a single word in the GFA about not having a hard border. This is simply the current interpretation the parties have chosen to put on the issue.

It is the current interpretation because it is an essential prerequisite of any agreement. This is basic understanding of the history of the island of Ireland.

The point being that it is not a legal obstacle and at one point the Irish were more than happy to go with a technical solution. Basically any solution that satisfies both sides (the UK and Ireland) is enough. Saying it is a matter of Irish history as if that creates some sort of legal issue is dishonest.

I went to Northern Ireland for the first time earlier this year and flew from Manchester. Travellers were firmly advised to get their 'passports' (not ID) ready for inspection in the departure lounge and everyone (who I could see) willingly obliged. I was surprised (given I was travelling in the UK) and it made an interesting difference from entering many regional airports in France (which I visit regularly) where a driving licence seems to be perfectly acceptable - even from UK nationals!

Incidentally I found NI to be beautiful and the people I met to be genuinely hospitable in a way you don't find elsewhere in the UK.

I believe you have to produce a passport to fly anywhere, on a commercial plane, within the UK. I always have to show one, when I occasionally fly London-Cornwall.

"You will need a current passport if you are travelling abroad and for many domestic flights within the UK"

I've been asked for my passport several times when taking domestic flights and they've always been fine when I've said "I haven't got it - I'm not going abroad" and shown my driving licence. (Well, once they were a bit arsey and said "That's not the best form of ID, but it will do", to which I didn't rise.)

"Many people, Anna Soubry for example, have said that trading on WTO terms would, ipso facto, require a hard border in Northern Ireland. But this is not the case. The WTO does not require its Member States to secure their borders"

If Britain leaves the single market, though, the EU will not allow the Republic of Ireland to trade freely across the border.

A border in Ireland undermines the GFA.The GFA is what keeps the peace in Ireland.So a border threatens peace in Ireland.To avoid a border NI must not diverge from ROI.ROI is in the EU.Thus NI must remain in the EU.NI is part of the UK and must not diverge from England, Wales, Scotland.Therefore the UK must remain in the EU.

In other words, anything but the softest of 'BINO' brexits is not possible without running a serious risk of a return to the Troubles.

If this is true (and is it true?) it should have played a far bigger part in the 2016 referendum debate than I remember it did.

It was mentioned but then as now was an inconvenient truth because it showed precisely to what extent we have integrated with our neighbours.

Except at the time of the election the Irish were more than happy to look at a technical solution for this. It was only after Varadkar took over that it suddenly became an issue.

And worth pointing out again there is not a single word in the GFA about not having a hard border. This is simply the current interpretation the parties have chosen to put on the issue.

It is the current interpretation because it is an essential prerequisite of any agreement. This is basic understanding of the history of the island of Ireland.

The point being that it is not a legal obstacle and at one point the Irish were more than happy to go with a technical solution. Basically any solution that satisfies both sides (the UK and Ireland) is enough. Saying it is a matter of Irish history as if that creates some sort of legal issue is dishonest.

Saying it is a matter of Irish History precisely does not attempt to create a legal issue.

It is nothing to do with the legality of it; it is to do with the practical reality of the state of the border.

The French seem intent on keeping alive their traditional love of a good old ruck.....

I have several French friends and it seems to be going a fair way more than that. The whole country seems to have had an increasing sense of angst and division that has been growing for years. Look at all the Jews leaving for Israel.

A border in Ireland undermines the GFA.The GFA is what keeps the peace in Ireland.So a border threatens peace in Ireland.To avoid a border NI must not diverge from ROI.ROI is in the EU.Thus NI must remain in the EU.NI is part of the UK and must not diverge from England, Wales, Scotland.Therefore the UK must remain in the EU.

In other words, anything but the softest of 'BINO' brexits is not possible without running a serious risk of a return to the Troubles.

If this is true (and is it true?) it should have played a far bigger part in the 2016 referendum debate than I remember it did.

It was mentioned but then as now was an inconvenient truth because it showed precisely to what extent we have integrated with our neighbours.

Except at the time of the election the Irish were more than happy to look at a technical solution for this. It was only after Varadkar took over that it suddenly became an issue.

And worth pointing out again there is not a single word in the GFA about not having a hard border. This is simply the current interpretation the parties have chosen to put on the issue.

It is the current interpretation because it is an essential prerequisite of any agreement. This is basic understanding of the history of the island of Ireland.

The point being that it is not a legal obstacle and at one point the Irish were more than happy to go with a technical solution. Basically any solution that satisfies both sides (the UK and Ireland) is enough. Saying it is a matter of Irish history as if that creates some sort of legal issue is dishonest.

Saying it is a matter of Irish History precisely does not attempt to create a legal issue.

It is nothing to do with the legality of it; it is to do with the practical reality of the state of the border.

The practical reality being that there are solutions that would be acceptable but currently the Irish, egged on by the EU, are not willing to discuss them. That is quite literally playing politics with the threat of the return to violence.

Apologies to everyone, and Topping in particular, a snafu saw the incorrect piece go up, the current version is the one that should have gone up.

The PB editorial team are off to serve penance for this mistake.

Ah. That clears things up. I think.

Anyway, I understand that J R-M has never changed a nappy on any of his kids. Judging by his recent behavior I expect that's because he cannot.

We found Dublin civilised and Cork homily, to oversimplify.Forever lumpen, the vignettes that stayed with me were the dislocated defensive look of a Garda cop on a bicycle, the deep thump from a terraced house when a worker blew the main fuse, and the staged beggar with a coarse woven rug over her carefully exposed toes just peeping out from under it.

And, of course, near Cork, the Blarney Stone that takes the piss out of tourists.

"Many people, Anna Soubry for example, have said that trading on WTO terms would, ipso facto, require a hard border in Northern Ireland. But this is not the case. The WTO does not require its Member States to secure their borders"

If Britain leaves the single market, though, the EU will not allow the Republic of Ireland to trade freely across the border.

Well it of course depends on the terms of trade. But I think the EU gets the NI/RoI dynamic.

Contrary to some on here, I liked Ireland when I was there in the summer. A busy, bsustling gridlocked capital city. We had the good fortune of staying in Brooks and then the Gresham so very nice and comfortable lodgings.

Trinity Bar was heaving but no worse than Soho or Leicester Square on a busy Friday night. Plenty of decent places to eat and not expensive by London standards.

The last decent Republican President he formed an international, UN backed coalition to win the Gulf War, oversaw the end of the Cold War, committed the USA to tackle climate change at the Rio Summit and even reversed his winning 1988 campaign pledge not to raise taxes to cut the deficit, contributing to his re election defeat in 1992 to Bill Clinton

A border in Ireland undermines the GFA.The GFA is what keeps the peace in Ireland.So a border threatens peace in Ireland.To avoid a border NI must not diverge from ROI.ROI is in the EU.Thus NI must remain in the EU.NI is part of the UK and must not diverge from England, Wales, Scotland.Therefore the UK must remain in the EU.

In other words, anything but the softest of 'BINO' brexits is not possible without running a serious risk of a return to the Troubles.

If this is true (and is it true?) it should have played a far bigger part in the 2016 referendum debate than I remember it did.

It was mentioned but then as now was an inconvenient truth because it showed precisely to what extent we have integrated with our neighbours.

Except at the time of the election the Irish were more than happy to look at a technical solution for this. It was only after Varadkar took over that it suddenly became an issue.

And worth pointing out again there is not a single word in the GFA about not having a hard border. This is simply the current interpretation the parties have chosen to put on the issue.

It is the current interpretation because it is an essential prerequisite of any agreement. This is basic understanding of the history of the island of Ireland.

The point being that it is not a legal obstacle and at one point the Irish were more than happy to go with a technical solution. Basically any solution that satisfies both sides (the UK and Ireland) is enough. Saying it is a matter of Irish history as if that creates some sort of legal issue is dishonest.

Saying it is a matter of Irish History precisely does not attempt to create a legal issue.

It is nothing to do with the legality of it; it is to do with the practical reality of the state of the border.

The practical reality being that there are solutions that would be acceptable but currently the Irish, egged on by the EU, are not willing to discuss them. That is quite literally playing politics with the threat of the return to violence.

I don’t think anyone disputes that “a technological solution” would be the best outcome but first we haven’t seen it and secondly the devil would be in the (for example) phyto-sanitary detail.

A border in Ireland undermines the GFA.The GFA is what keeps the peace in Ireland.So a border threatens peace in Ireland.To avoid a border NI must not diverge from ROI.ROI is in the EU.Thus NI must remain in the EU.NI is part of the UK and must not diverge from England, Wales, Scotland.Therefore the UK must remain in the EU.

In other words, anything but the softest of 'BINO' brexits is not possible without running a serious risk of a return to the Troubles.

If this is true (and is it true?) it should have played a far bigger part in the 2016 referendum debate than I remember it did.

It was mentioned but then as now was an inconvenient truth because it showed precisely to what extent we have integrated with our neighbours.

Except at the time of the election the Irish were more than happy to look at a technical solution for this. It was only after Varadkar took over that it suddenly became an issue.

And worth pointing out again there is not a single word in the GFA about not having a hard border. This is simply the current interpretation the parties have chosen to put on the issue.

It is the current interpretation because it is an essential prerequisite of any agreement. This is basic understanding of the history of the island of Ireland.

The point being that it is not a legal obstacle and at one point the Irish were more than happy to go with a technical solution. Basically any solution that satisfies both sides (the UK and Ireland) is enough. Saying it is a matter of Irish history as if that creates some sort of legal issue is dishonest.

Saying it is a matter of Irish History precisely does not attempt to create a legal issue.

It is nothing to do with the legality of it; it is to do with the practical reality of the state of the border.

Realistically, a "hard border" wouldn't be barbed wire and checkpoints, but a lorry park a mile down the road on each side, plus the odd customs van driving around doing random checks. It would practically work fine except Republican vandals would cause a lot of issues.

The real genius in agreeing the whole of the UK being in a customs agreement before negotiating trade is that it removes the EU's main leverage (the threat of closing the border). And we can always opt out in 10 years.

It was evident to everyone (except for a few PB.com pampered ones) that Jupiter was the President for the Rich.

Macron is not stupid. Far from it. He must have known this is how the French would react. The question is, is he clever and bold enough to enforce reform, despite the kickback?

Remember how Thatcher stocked up on coal before the miners' strike. That's why she won. She was smart and prepared. Then she stared Scargill down, and the country was saved.

O, for a Maggie to save us now. We are about to see if Macron is a French Thatcher.

Civil disorder and looting is not an acceptable form of protest. "I think you're wrong", and therefore it entitles me to rob a shop... ??

How many times have you accidentally found yourself taking goods from a shop with broken windows, at night, and with no staff around? I'm entirely happy to use these people for target practice for the Army (Here or in France). In fact I'd suggest we bolster the Army budget so that they don't miss.

So basically we have had freedom of movement without even a formal agreement (pre 2011) for 100 years or so with Eire. We cooperate on immigration from third parties including other EU citizens. We are content for this arrangement to continue post Brexit. We are content for there to be no border posts or checks. We would be content with away from the border checks on goods, etc as we have today. We currently have identical standards. We are going to be bound to those standards for at least the transition period and possibly longer.

Why do we have to have the backstop again? What exactly is the problem that it is supposed to be a solution to? No doubt the fault is mine.

None of this stops JRM from being a prat of course.

Read the amended article (he commanded arrogantly). It will tell you what the problem is.

Ok, I've read it. I can see if the leave the EU on a no deal basis and rely exclusively on WTO terms then there could be a problem. Of course the existence of that problem might be an incentive for the EU to stop messing about and agree a FTA PDQ.

If we enter into a FTA with the EU then the problem disappears. The GATT rules do not prevent such arrangements where there is a FTA. If we leave with a deal then it could easily be a part of any FTA that there are special provisions agreed for the NI border.

So the purpose of the backstop agreement is to cover a situation where the EU refuses to agree a FTA. We really should have told them to go forth, we really should.

A border in Ireland undermines the GFA.The GFA is what keeps the peace in Ireland.So a border threatens peace in Ireland.To avoid a border NI must not diverge from ROI.ROI is in the EU.Thus NI must remain in the EU.NI is part of the UK and must not diverge from England, Wales, Scotland.Therefore the UK must remain in the EU.

In other words, anything but the softest of 'BINO' brexits is not possible without running a serious risk of a return to the Troubles.

If this is true (and is it true?) it should have played a far bigger part in the 2016 referendum debate than I remember it did.

It was mentioned but then as now was an inconvenient truth because it showed precisely to what extent we have integrated with our neighbours.

Except at the time of the election the Irish were more than happy to look at a technical solution for this. It was only after Varadkar took over that it suddenly became an issue.

And worth pointing out again there is not a single word in the GFA about not having a hard border. This is simply the current interpretation the parties have chosen to put on the issue.

It is the current interpretation because it is an essential prerequisite of any agreement. This is basic understanding of the history of the island of Ireland.

The point being that it is not a legal obstacle and at one point the Irish were more than happy to go with a technical solution. Basically any solution that satisfies both sides (the UK and Ireland) is enough. Saying it is a matter of Irish history as if that creates some sort of legal issue is dishonest.

Saying it is a matter of Irish History precisely does not attempt to create a legal issue.

It is nothing to do with the legality of it; it is to do with the practical reality of the state of the border.

The practical reality being that there are solutions that would be acceptable but currently the Irish, egged on by the EU, are not willing to discuss them. That is quite literally playing politics with the threat of the return to violence.

I don’t think anyone disputes that “a technological solution” would be the best outcome but first we haven’t seen it and secondly the devil would be in the (for example) phyto-sanitary detail.

We would have seen it, or had a much better idea of what it would have been had Varadkar not decided to dump the work that Edna Kenny had been doing on it with the British. This is part of the reason why it was a non issue at the time of the Referendum but then became one later.

A border in Ireland undermines the GFA.The GFA is what keeps the peace in Ireland.So a border threatens peace in Ireland.To avoid a border NI must not diverge from ROI.ROI is in the EU.Thus NI must remain in the EU.NI is part of the UK and must not diverge from England, Wales, Scotland.Therefore the UK must remain in the EU.

In other words, anything but the softest of 'BINO' brexits is not possible without running a serious risk of a return to the Troubles.

If this is true (and is it true?) it should have played a far bigger part in the 2016 referendum debate than I remember it did.

It was mentioned but then as now was an inconvenient truth because it showed precisely to what extent we have integrated with our neighbours.

Except at the time of the election the Irish were more than happy to look at a technical solution for this. It was only after Varadkar took over that it suddenly became an issue.

And worth pointing out again there is not a single word in the GFA about not having a hard border. This is simply the current interpretation the parties have chosen to put on the issue.

It is the current interpretation because it is an essential prerequisite of any agreement. This is basic understanding of the history of the island of Ireland.

The point being that it is not a legal obstacle and at one point the Irish were more than happy to go with a technical solution. Basically any solution that satisfies both sides (the UK and Ireland) is enough. Saying it is a matter of Irish history as if that creates some sort of legal issue is dishonest.

Saying it is a matter of Irish History precisely does not attempt to create a legal issue.

It is nothing to do with the legality of it; it is to do with the practical reality of the state of the border.

Realistically, a "hard border" wouldn't be barbed wire and checkpoints, but a lorry park a mile down the road on each side, plus the odd customs van driving around doing random checks. It would practically work fine except Republican vandals would cause a lot of issues.

The real genius in agreeing the whole of the UK being in a customs agreement before negotiating trade is that it removes the EU's main leverage (the threat of closing the border). And we can always opt out in 10 years.

It was of course the centerpiece of chequers which was dismissed by the EU (and of course the ERG).

It was evident to everyone (except for a few PB.com pampered ones) that Jupiter was the President for the Rich.

Macron is not stupid. Far from it. He must have known this is how the French would react. The question is, is he clever and bold enough to enforce reform, despite the kickback?

Remember how Thatcher stocked up on coal before the miners' strike. That's why she won. She was smart and prepared. Then she stared Scargill down, and the country was saved.

O, for a Maggie to save us now. We are about to see if Macron is a French Thatcher.

Civil disorder and looting is not an acceptable form of protest. I think you're wrong, and therefore it entitles me to rob a shop...

How many times have you accidentally found yourself taking goods from a shop with broken windows, at night, and with no staff around? I'm entirely happy to use these people for target practice for the Army (Here or in France). In fact I'd suggest we bolster the Army budget so that they don't miss.

Er, I'm hardly endorsing the rioting and looting??! I'm just retweeting news about it, as it is politically relevant. I agree it is pointless, dangerous and imbecilic, and the violent rioters should expect a thumping from the gendarmes.

My point is that the French Republic is a revolutionary nation, born in blood, and they are much quicker to resort to street violence and civil disorder as a form of protest, than, say, the Brits or the Germans. And they do it on a larger scale.

Plenty of "reforming" French presidents, from Chirac to Hollande, have faced this disorder before, and they have always backed down. So the question is, will Macron cave, similarly?

Speaking of £85K, what's going to happen to the bank account deposit protection limit of that amount that is currently guaranteed by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme if sterling plummets against the euro? It will be in for a hammering if it stays roughly pegged to €100K.

If sterling takes a battering, it will go up, not down, e.g. if 1€ = £1, then it becomes £100k.

Point taken. What I meant to say was that maintaining its real value could be very costly.

Costly when and real value to whom? Forget the funny foreigners with their strange Euro-money and our guarantee retains its value in sterling and costs the same (ie almost nothing except for a bookkeeping charge, provided the banks remain solvent).

Now, one reason we reduced the amount guaranteed was because the EU was worried our higher guarantees would suck in foreign money from Belgian dentists, leaving all the continental banks with no deposits left.

In other words, the reason we might want to raise the guarantee is nothing to do with exchange rates and everything to do with competition. #TakeBackControl #Singapore #UnlessWeSignAnAgreementNotToCompeteEvenAfterBrexit.

I'm not au fait with the details of how it's paid for. But it's an insurance policy, against eventualities which include precisely that banks do not remain solvent, and it surely must cost more than almost nothing. Payout could be required by problems in the global banking system, but it could also be required by problems which disproportionately affect banks in Britain, which is why I'd have thought the cost wouldn't only be in sterling but I may be wrong.

That's interesting info on why the amount was reduced to £75K. But why was it increased back to £85K again? Wasn't that to do with the fall in the exchange rate?

So basically we have had freedom of movement without even a formal agreement (pre 2011) for 100 years or so with Eire. We cooperate on immigration from third parties including other EU citizens. We are content for this arrangement to continue post Brexit. We are content for there to be no border posts or checks. We would be content with away from the border checks on goods, etc as we have today. We currently have identical standards. We are going to be bound to those standards for at least the transition period and possibly longer.

Why do we have to have the backstop again? What exactly is the problem that it is supposed to be a solution to? No doubt the fault is mine.

None of this stops JRM from being a prat of course.

Read the amended article (he commanded arrogantly). It will tell you what the problem is.

Ok, I've read it. I can see if the leave the EU on a no deal basis and rely exclusively on WTO terms then there could be a problem. Of course the existence of that problem might be an incentive for the EU to stop messing about and agree a FTA PDQ.

If we enter into a FTA with the EU then the problem disappears. The GATT rules do not prevent such arrangements where there is a FTA. If we leave with a deal then it could easily be a part of any FTA that there are special provisions agreed for the NI border.

So the purpose of the backstop agreement is to cover a situation where the EU refuses to agree a FTA. We really should have told them to go forth, we really should.

The purpose of the backstop was to ensure that if negotiations for that FTA were ongoing past the transition period then we wouldn't fall out into WTO terms of trade.

It was evident to everyone (except for a few PB.com pampered ones) that Jupiter was the President for the Rich.

Macron is not stupid. Far from it. He must have known this is how the French would react. The question is, is he clever and bold enough to enforce reform, despite the kickback?

Remember how Thatcher stocked up on coal before the miners' strike. That's why she won. She was smart and prepared. Then she stared Scargill down, and the country was saved.

O, for a Maggie to save us now. We are about to see if Macron is a French Thatcher.

Civil disorder and looting is not an acceptable form of protest. I think you're wrong, and therefore it entitles me to rob a shop...

How many times have you accidentally found yourself taking goods from a shop with broken windows, at night, and with no staff around? I'm entirely happy to use these people for target practice for the Army (Here or in France). In fact I'd suggest we bolster the Army budget so that they don't miss.

Er, I'm hardly endorsing the rioting and looting??! I'm just retweeting news about it, as it is politically relevant. I agree it is pointless, dangerous and imbecilic, and the violent rioters should expect a thumping from the gendarmes.

My point is that the French Republic is a revolutionary nation, born in blood, and they are much quicker to resort to street violence and civil disorder as a form of protest, than, say, the Brits or the Germans. And they do it on a larger scale.

Plenty of "reforming" French presidents, from Chirac to Hollande, have faced this disorder before, and they have always backed down. So the question is, will Macron cave, similarly?

Yes, sorry, I've amended the post. My 'I think you're wrong' seemed to be directed at you, but wasn't. Just that's their excuse.

Aside from her rudeness, lies and hypocrisy (living in a £750k council house?), Osamor is quite unbelievably stupid. She gave some TV interview from the Labour Conference and literally spoke gibberish for three minutes. Judging by her tweets she can't spell, or even think clearly. I reckon she has an IQ of about 85.

A border in Ireland undermines the GFA.The GFA is what keeps the peace in Ireland.So a border threatens peace in Ireland.To avoid a border NI must not diverge from ROI.ROI is in the EU.Thus NI must remain in the EU.NI is part of the UK and must not diverge from England, Wales, Scotland.Therefore the UK must remain in the EU.

In other words, anything but the softest of 'BINO' brexits is not possible without running a serious risk of a return to the Troubles.

If this is true (and is it true?) it should have played a far bigger part in the 2016 referendum debate than I remember it did.

It was mentioned but then as now was an inconvenient truth because it showed precisely to what extent we have integrated with our neighbours.

Except at the timcurrent interpretation the parties have chosen to put on the issue.

It is the current interpretation because it is an essential prerequisite of any agreement. This is basic understanding of the history of the island of Ireland.

The point being that it is not a legal obstacle and at one point the Irish were more than happy to go with a technical solution. Basically any solution that satisfies both sides (the UK and Ireland) is enough. Saying it is a matter of Irish history as if that creates some sort of legal issue is dishonest.

Saying it is a matter of Irish History precisely does not attempt to create a legal issue.

It is nothing to do with the legality of it; it is to do with the practical reality of the state of the border.

The practical reality being that there are solutions that would be acceptable but currently the Irish, egged on by the EU, are not willing to discuss them. That is quite literally playing politics with the threat of the return to violence.

I don’t think anyone disputes that “a technological solution” would be the best outcome but first we haven’t seen it and secondly the devil would be in the (for example) phyto-sanitary detail.

We would have seen it, or had a much better idea of what it would have been had Varadkar not decided to dump the work that Edna Kenny had been doing on it with the British. This is part of the reason why it was a non issue at the time of the Referendum but then became one later.

It was evident to everyone (except for a few PB.com pampered ones) that Jupiter was the President for the Rich.

Macron is not stupid. Far from it. He must have known this is how the French would react. The question is, is he clever and bold enough to enforce reform, despite the kickback?

Remember how Thatcher stocked up on coal before the miners' strike. That's why she won. She was smart and prepared. Then she stared Scargill down, and the country was saved.

O, for a Maggie to save us now. We are about to see if Macron is a French Thatcher.

Civil disorder and looting is not an acceptable form of protest. I think you're wrong, and therefore it entitles me to rob a shop...

How many times have you accidentally found yourself taking goods from a shop with broken windows, at night, and with no staff around? I'm entirely happy to use these people for target practice for the Army (Here or in France). In fact I'd suggest we bolster the Army budget so that they don't miss.

Er, I'm hardly endorsing the rioting and looting??! I'm just retweeting news about it, as it is politically relevant. I agree it is pointless, dangerous and imbecilic, and the violent rioters should expect a thumping from the gendarmes.

My point is that the French Republic is a revolutionary nation, born in blood, and they are much quicker to resort to street violence and civil disorder as a form of protest, than, say, the Brits or the Germans. And they do it on a larger scale.

Plenty of "reforming" French presidents, from Chirac to Hollande, have faced this disorder before, and they have always backed down. So the question is, will Macron cave, similarly?

Interesting it is fuel tax at the heart of this. Bill Clinton lost his first governorship because he introduce some kind of fuel tax in AR iirc.

I went to Northern Ireland for the first time earlier this year and flew from Manchester. Travellers were firmly advised to get their 'passports' (not ID) ready for inspection in the departure lounge and everyone (who I could see) willingly obliged. I was surprised (given I was travelling in the UK) and it made an interesting difference from entering many regional airports in France (which I visit regularly) where a driving licence seems to be perfectly acceptable - even from UK nationals!

Incidentally I found NI to be beautiful and the people I met to be genuinely hospitable in a way you don't find elsewhere in the UK.

I believe you have to produce a passport to fly anywhere, on a commercial plane, within the UK. I always have to show one, when I occasionally fly London-Cornwall.

I have flown to Northern Ireland on a driving licence.

Wow. Where do I get one like it? Mine does many things but it won't fly. It won't even let me drive unless I have a car...

Aside from her rudeness, lies and hypocrisy (living in a £750k council house?), Osamor is quite unbelievably stupid. She gave some TV interview from the Labour Conference and literally spoke gibberish for three minutes. Judging by her tweets she can't spell, or even think clearly. I reckon she has an IQ of about 85.

And she is - or was - in the Shadow Cabinet.

Yes, but she was only slightly above average for the Shadow Cabinet. It's not like she's embarrassingly more intelligent than the shadow Secretary of State for Justice...ah.

I went to Northern Ireland for the first time earlier this year and flew from Manchester. Travellers were firmly advised to get their 'passports' (not ID) ready for inspection in the departure lounge and everyone (who I could see) willingly obliged. I was surprised (given I was travelling in the UK) and it made an interesting difference from entering many regional airports in France (which I visit regularly) where a driving licence seems to be perfectly acceptable - even from UK nationals!

Incidentally I found NI to be beautiful and the people I met to be genuinely hospitable in a way you don't find elsewhere in the UK.

I believe you have to produce a passport to fly anywhere, on a commercial plane, within the UK. I always have to show one, when I occasionally fly London-Cornwall.

I have flown to Northern Ireland on a driving licence.

Wow. Where do I get one like it? Mine does many things but it won't fly. It won't even let me drive unless I have a car...

I bet your students love your comments on their homework essays

Usually for ones like that I confine myself to question mark followed by exclamation marks, thus: ?!!!!

It saves awkward explanations to SLT after marking trawls.

On one occasion I did let myself go somewhat when a student claimed nurses in WW1 played an important role in bringing soldiers back from the dead. My comment was, 'Jesus, eat your heart out.'

So basically we have had freedom of movement without even a formal agreement (pre 2011) for 100 years or so with Eire. We cooperate on immigration from third parties including other EU citizens. We are content for this arrangement to continue post Brexit. We are content for there to be no border posts or checks. We would be content with away from the border checks on goods, etc as we have today. We currently have identical standards. We are going to be bound to those standards for at least the transition period and possibly longer.

Why do we have to have the backstop again? What exactly is the problem that it is supposed to be a solution to? No doubt the fault is mine.

None of this stops JRM from being a prat of course.

Read the amended article (he commanded arrogantly). It will tell you what the problem is.

Ok, I've read it. I can see if the leave the EU on a no deal basis and rely exclusively on WTO terms then there could be a problem. Of course the existence of that problem might be an incentive for the EU to stop messing about and agree a FTA PDQ.

If we enter into a FTA with the EU then the problem disappears. The GATT rules do not prevent such arrangements where there is a FTA. If we leave with a deal then it could easily be a part of any FTA that there are special provisions agreed for the NI border.

So the purpose of the backstop agreement is to cover a situation where the EU refuses to agree a FTA. We really should have told them to go forth, we really should.

The purpose of the backstop was to ensure that if negotiations for that FTA were ongoing past the transition period then we wouldn't fall out into WTO terms of trade.

It was evident to everyone (except for a few PB.com pampered ones) that Jupiter was the President for the Rich.

Macron is not stupid. Far from it. He must have known this is how the French would react. The question is, is he clever and bold enough to enforce reform, despite the kickback?

Remember how Thatcher stocked up on coal before the miners' strike. That's why she won. She was smart and prepared. Then she stared Scargill down, and the country was saved.

O, for a Maggie to save us now. We are about to see if Macron is a French Thatcher.

Civil disorder and looting is not an acceptable form of protest. I think you're wrong, and therefore it entitles me to rob a shop...

How many times have you accidentally found yourself taking goods from a shop with broken windows, at night, and with no staff around? I'm entirely happy to use these people for target practice for the Army (Here or in France). In fact I'd suggest we bolster the Army budget so that they don't miss.

Er, I'm hardly endorsing the rioting and looting??! I'm just retweeting news about it, as it is politically relevant. I agree it is pointless, dangerous and imbecilic, and the violent rioters should expect a thumping from the gendarmes.

My point is that the French Republic is a revolutionary nation, born in blood, and they are much quicker to resort to street violence and civil disorder as a form of protest, than, say, the Brits or the Germans. And they do it on a larger scale.

Plenty of "reforming" French presidents, from Chirac to Hollande, have faced this disorder before, and they have always backed down. So the question is, will Macron cave, similarly?

It's not just down to him though is it? He has to pass stuff through the Assembly. And plenty of his deputies are new-to-politics independent types.

Aside from her rudeness, lies and hypocrisy (living in a £750k council house?), Osamor is quite unbelievably stupid. She gave some TV interview from the Labour Conference and literally spoke gibberish for three minutes. Judging by her tweets she can't spell, or even think clearly. I reckon she has an IQ of about 85.

And she is - or was - in the Shadow Cabinet.

Yes but as she is one of the few black women in UK politics, she shouldn't be held accountable to any competence or ethical standards.

Aside from her rudeness, lies and hypocrisy (living in a £750k council house?), Osamor is quite unbelievably stupid. She gave some TV interview from the Labour Conference and literally spoke gibberish for three minutes. Judging by her tweets she can't spell, or even think clearly. I reckon she has an IQ of about 85.

And she is - or was - in the Shadow Cabinet.

Yes but as she is one of the few black women in UK politics, she shouldn't be held accountable to any competence or ethical standards.

It has to be said that it is unfortunate the three most high profile non white women in British politics right now are her, Abbott and Onasanya.

So basically we have had freedom of movement without even a formal agreement (pre 2011) for 100 years or so with Eire. We cooperate on immigration from third parties including other EU citizens. We are content for this arrangement to continue post Brexit. We are content for there to be no border posts or checks. We would be content with away from the border checks on goods, etc as we have today. We currently have identical standards. We are going to be bound to those standards for at least the transition period and possibly longer.

Why do we have to have the backstop again? What exactly is the problem that it is supposed to be a solution to? No doubt the fault is mine.

None of this stops JRM from being a prat of course.

Read the amended article (he commanded arrogantly). It will tell you what the problem is.

Ok, I've read it. I can see if the leave the EU on a no deal basis and rely exclusively on WTO terms then there could be a problem. Of course the existence of that problem might be an incentive for the EU to stop messing about and agree a FTA PDQ.

If we enter into a FTA with the EU then the problem disappears. The GATT rules do not prevent such arrangements where there is a FTA. If we leave with a deal then it could easily be a part of any FTA that there are special provisions agreed for the NI border.

So the purpose of the backstop agreement is to cover a situation where the EU refuses to agree a FTA. We really should have told them to go forth, we really should.

The purpose of the backstop was to ensure that if negotiations for that FTA were ongoing past the transition period then we wouldn't fall out into WTO terms of trade.

Perfectly sensible.

No, its not. But we are where we are. Sigh.

Seriously David that you don't understand the geopolitics of the UK is very surprising.

The Irish Republic is a grown up state and entitled to be treated as an equal. The actions of our ancestors on that island were in many cases deplorable and we owe the Irish a duty to treat them honourably now.

If we wish to be honourable we have to behave as such regardless of the actions of our ancestors. If we only do it where our ancestors behaved horribly that doesn't strike me as particularly honourable. For one thing if you go down that route we don't have to act honourably to anyone who at some point was deplorable to us, and I'm sure you don't believe that.

The Irish Republic is a grown up state and entitled to be treated as an equal. The actions of our ancestors on that island were in many cases deplorable and we owe the Irish a duty to treat them honourably now.

If we wish to be honourable we have to behave as such regardless of the actions of our ancestors. If we only do it where our ancestors behaved horribly that doesn't strike me as particularly honourable. For one thing if you go down that route we don't have to act honourably to anyone who at some point was deplorable to us, and I'm sure you don't believe that.

Well, the only countries that would apply to are the Americans, the Germans and the French. So it actually sounds pretty good to me.

I went to Northern Ireland for the first time earlier this year and flew from Manchester. Travellers were firmly advised to get their 'passports' (not ID) ready for inspection in the departure lounge and everyone (who I could see) willingly obliged. I was surprised (given I was travelling in the UK) and it made an interesting difference from entering many regional airports in France (which I visit regularly) where a driving licence seems to be perfectly acceptable - even from UK nationals!

Incidentally I found NI to be beautiful and the people I met to be genuinely hospitable in a way you don't find elsewhere in the UK.

Same with me, first trip to Belfast in September. I agree about the hospitality and the friendliness of the people.

I went to Northern Ireland for the first time earlier this year and flew from Manchester. Travellers were firmly advised to get their 'passports' (not ID) ready for inspection in the departure lounge and everyone (who I could see) willingly obliged. I was surprised (given I was travelling in the UK) and it made an interesting difference from entering many regional airports in France (which I visit regularly) where a driving licence seems to be perfectly acceptable - even from UK nationals!

Incidentally I found NI to be beautiful and the people I met to be genuinely hospitable in a way you don't find elsewhere in the UK.

I believe you have to produce a passport to fly anywhere, on a commercial plane, within the UK. I always have to show one, when I occasionally fly London-Cornwall.

Interesting; I'm flying to Dublin for the first time in a fortnight so I'll be interested to find out if I can feel a cultural difference between the two cities.

Dublin is odd. It can feel very British - more British than London. It's like a more prosperous extrovert Liverpool, or Glasgow.(The suburbs, however, are seriously drab).

The further you get from Dublin the less British Ireland becomes, and by the time you're down in the Ring of Kerry or on the Arran Isles it is very definitely a different country. I love the west coast, especially Connemara.

Thanks - I'm taking my mum (in her 70s) for a pre-Christmas 'rest' before the remainder of our somewhat dysfunctional family descend upon us. Knowing your reputation for food appreciation is there a restaurant in Dublin you would recommend? The key word for mum is 'traditional'.